TMI Blog2002 (12) TMI 78X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 09.82 and DM 291.81 as a result whereof, 100 times more customs duty had been paid. A sum of Rs. 15,96,030/- instead of Rs. 15,960.30 by way of import duty was deposited on 15th July, 1995 on the basis of the wrong calculation of the respondents through Challan No. 5651 which is in TR 6 form. After a long time, the mistake was detected whereafter, an application purported to be under Section 154 of the Customs Act seeking rectification of the said clerical error, was filed on 23rd September, 1996, which reads thus : "Sub :- Request for rectification and correction of mistakes and passing consequential order u/s 154 of the Customs Act, 1962. We invite your kind attention to the Bill of Entry No. 905803, dated 7th July, 1995 filed before you, which was duly assessed by you. In terms of Bill of Entry and the Invoice accompanying the same, the imported goods namely, Module, came to us, which had a price of DM 709.82, free of charge from the foreign supplier in replacement of the one, which was received by us earlier defectively. Similarly, in the same Bill of Entry and Invoice, the Circuit Board obtained by us has been shown to have a price of DM 291.81, supplied free of charge by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alf of the Writ Petitioner to the effect that the mistake was committed in the office of the respondents, has also been denied and disputed. Ms. Anusuya Salwan, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would submit that Section 154 of the Customs Act not only embraces in its fold a mistake crept in the order or the decision passed by the authorities under the Customs Act but also other errors and mistakes. The learned Counsel would submit that the said amount had not been paid by way of excise duty or purported customs duty but was in effect and substance, paid by way of only a mistake and thus, the bar of limitation provided under Section 27 of the said Act will have no application whatsoever in the instant case. In support of the said contention, the learned Counsel placed strong reliance upon the decisions of Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation v. Collector of Customs, 1993 (63) E.L.T. 648 (Tribunal) and Collector of Customs, Chandigarh v. Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd., 1995 (76) E.L.T. 408 (Tribunal). 7.Ms. Rekha Palli, appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, would submit that the petition is barred by limitation and in support of the said content ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e mistake committed by the petitioner, may be allowed to go unnoticed. If, in relation to an administrative action, the statutory or administrative authority is entitled to correct a bona fide mistake, we do not see any reason as to why the State shall take recourse to unjust enrichment only because such a mistake had been committed by the petitioner herein. A mistake, it is trite, can be rectified even by a statutory or executive authority. By reason of such rectification of such mistake, as civil consequences would ensure, the principles of natural justice may have to be complied with but where the facts are admitted, even the said principles need not be complied with (see Bhagwan Shukla v. Union of India Ors., AIR 1994 SC 2480 and Dr. Wren International Ltd. Anr. v. Engineers India Ltd. Ors., AIR 1996 Cal. 424). 13.A fair, reasonable and equitable stand in a lis by the State is the basic pillar of good governance. 14.It is not a case, where a tenderer, who was bound to meticulously fill up a tender form having regard to a warning, would not be permitted to rectify a mistake. In W.B. State Electricity Board v. Patel Engineering Co. Ltd. Ors. (supra) where public works ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ITB, by the State or its agencies (the appellant) in favour of one bidder would create justifiable doubts in the minds of other bidders, would impair the rule of transparency and fairness and provide room for manipulation to suit the whims of the State agencies in picking and choosing a bidder for awarding contracts as in the case of distributing bounty or charity. In our view such approach should always be avoided. Where power to relax or waive a rule or a condition exists under the rules, it has to be done strictly in compliance with the rules. We have, therefore, no hesitation in concluding that adherence to the ITB or rules is the best principle to be followed, which is also in the best public interest. The Court however noticed Para 84 of the American Jurisprudence (2nd Edn., Vol. 64, p 944), which is in the following terms :- 26. ...As a general rule, equitable relief will be granted to a bidder for a public contract where he has made a material mistake of fact in the bid which he submitted, and where, upon the discovery of any mistake, he acts promptly in informing the public authorities and requesting withdrawal of his bid or opportunity to rectify his mistake particul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rrower meaning than it has in popular use. The Court has power to grant relief a plaintiff whose election between two alternative claims is due to a mistake in the manner of making use of the machinery of the Court. (S. Kaprow Co. Ltd. v. Maclelland Co. Ltd. [1948] 1 KB 618, [1948] 1 All ER 264, CA; Firth v. John Mowlem Co. Ltd. [1978] 3 All ER 331, [1978] 1 WLR 11 84, CA (appearance entered by mistake). The distinction between mistake at common law and in equity is also important because of its effect on the rights of third parties. At law mistake renders a contract void ab initio; third parties cannot acquire title to property dealt with under it. However, in equity the contract is merely voidable and third party rights may be acquired. If the relationship between the parties to a transaction imposes a duty on one party to inform the other of all the material facts and the party owing such a duty fails to do so, the transaction may be set aside on the ground of mistake. Mistake may also be made a ground for relief by statute." 17.Having regard to the views we have taken, we are of the opinion that the decisions cited at the bar are not of much relevance. For the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
